Yes I did see that it was a very good effort it plotted for 2023 or 2024 space for 16 rounds of CC in addition to 3 rounds of whatever red ball cricket they deem worthy not play in August with Blast games on the Fridays from May right through to the start of the hundred. Plenty of scope within that for rest weeks.

I've just read - if you think our fixtures are bad with this enormous gap wait till you hear this - Worcestershire are away this week and next week which means that over a span of 53 days during late July, August and early September their members will have been able to see just 4 measly days of white ball RLODC cricket

It's just shit that is. About time county chiefs got shit like that sorted. Should be Warwick at home one week Worcester at home the following week

Scary to think our CEO might even see merit in this and vote for Warwickshire to become a feeder county. Now we know why we need this SGM calling just in case they're so stupid as to vote this through.

Revealed: Andrew Strauss wants ‘feeder leagues’ as counties fight reform plans
Exclusive: Plan features six-team Premier Division, two lower leagues and play-offs to resolve promotion, relegation and overall champion

Nick Hoult,
CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT
5 September 2022 • 7:51pm

The new look County Championship proposed by Sir Andrew Strauss will include a six-team Premier Division with two feeder leagues of six underneath competing for a promotional play-off, it can be revealed, but reluctant chairmen are fighting against the plans.

All counties will play at least 10 four-day matches as part of the proposals from Strauss’ high performance review in what would be one of the biggest shake-ups of the English county system in its history.

Teams will play each other home and away with the potential for play-offs to decide the champions in the Premier Division. The winners of the two conferences will play off to decide which of them is promoted to the top flight, with one up, one down proposed.

The 50-over competition will be played in April, the Blast from May onwards, the Hundred in August and the championship mainly in June, July and September, the prime months of the summer instead of being played in early April and the end of September as it is now.

There is also a proposal to play three slots of four-day cricket in August, like festival weeks, that sit outside the championship so counties could still play 14 red-ball games (if they reach the play-off). These will take place during the Hundred, giving Test players some red-ball cricket if needed, as well as those without Hundred contracts. It would also provide members with more four-day cricket with the possibility of inviting teams such as Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Scotland to take part and raise the standard in those countries too.

Strauss is fighting to persuade reluctant counties to accept the idea which needs 12 votes in favour for the change to go through. A ballot of the counties is pencilled in for Sept 20 and intense lobbying is ongoing.

Strauss and members of the high performance review have spent the past couple of weeks meeting counties to outline a vision for domestic cricket from 2024 onwards.

It is understood there is reluctance from some county chairmen to agree to a reduction in four-day championship cricket which is popular with members. The members own 15 of the 18 counties.

Strauss will present the findings of his discussions with the counties to the ECB board on Wednesday, which will be chaired for the first time by Richard Thompson at the start of his five-year term as the board’s new chairman.

Data released recently by the ECB shows English players play 79 days of domestic cricket, which is more than any other country and leaves them with less time to prepare and rest when compared with other nations. It also leaves less time to prepare good pitches which in turn makes the step up to Test level harder.

The ECB’s data discovered that averages for English batsmen drop off significantly in Test cricket compared with county cricket whereas for India, Australia and South Africa there is little difference in comparison. Averages for seamers are also much higher in Test cricket compared with county cricket because they are used to helpful pitches in the championship.

The high performance review was launched after the Ashes defeat and years of underachievement by England’s Test team.

Some overseas 'stars' would still play in it. Main thing is to make a schedule that is sensible benefitting spectators. Like the old Sunday League which worked because every fortnight on a Sunday there was a home game to go to. Plenty of overseas pros would still come. Perhaps they'd play a bit of club cricket at the weekend and help out with the coaching/community work during the week. There'd also be a week or two where there'd be no championship game on so extra Blast games could be slotted in

8 weeks of Fridays 4 home 4 away plus some weeks with extra games on assorted days while the championship takes a breather I think'd be a good compromise avoiding the need to shove championship cricket entirely into April May and September

Interesting from this telegraph article that many counties want the blast to be a mainly Friday night event - this compromise might not suit every fan but could help secure a sensible and familiar schedule for the season instead of the complete dogs dinner we ended up with this year;

Counties are pushing for more Twenty20 Blast matches to be played on Friday nights to better promote the competition as part of changes to the domestic schedule from 2024.

Matches on Friday nights are generally the best supported. This season, the need to finish the group stages of the competition as early as July 3 meant that counties played fewer games on Friday than many would like. Some counties played as few as four T20 Blast matches on Friday nights, and only two at home.

But there is a strong desire among many counties to schedule more T20 Blast matches on Fridays. It is also thought that more regularity in the schedule would make it easier for fans to know when matches are being played and make it easier for them to be able to afford to attend multiple matches over the season – especially significant given the current cost-of-living crisis.

Many counties believe that the congested scheduling of T20 Blast matches undermines support for the competition. This year, for instance, Yorkshire played six home Blast matches in the space of 15 days at the start of the tournament.

The T20 Blast is the most lucrative county competition for the 18 first-class counties, with its commercial significance particularly great among the 10 sides who do not host a team run the Hundred. But there is a strong belief among many counties that the schedule this season did not maximise interest and that greater emphasis should be placed on the ‘Friday Night Blast’ concept.

While other short-format competitions are played in small windows, with matches on every day of the week, many county chiefs would like the Friday night element of the T20 Blast to be at the core of the tournament’s identity.

With the Hundred due to begin at the start of August each year, a number of county chiefs support the T20 Blast running from the middle of May until the end of July, allowing each county to play around eight group games on Friday nights, with four at home.

There is significant support T20 Blast matches being played alongside the County Championship, with Blast matches generally on Fridays and Championship matches running from Sunday to Wednesday. This is viewed as a way of pleasing both members who prefer first-class cricket and fans of the T20 game.

But there remain significant disagreements between counties among many aspects of the domestic schedule, which are being discussed ahead of the county chairs voting on the domestic schedule September 20. A two-thirds majority of the 18 chairs is needed to vote through any changes.

A number of counties – principally the ones that host Hundred venues – favour reducing the group stages of the T20 Blast from its current 14 games to 10, which would mean a reduction from seven to five home games each. But some counties are opposed to any such a cut. There is even some support for increasing the size of the group stages to 16 games, meaning eight home games per side.

My worry is of course all the disagreement between counties will lead to the ECB getting its way with drastic cuts to proper cricket

Friday nights work. Three week windows like in the early days of T20 works. Hybrids don't tend. to. Hundred has the window so Blast should get Friday nights so it stands out has its own identity

Then county championship can have a set Sunday start 14 or perhaps 16 games a season

First and foremost my concern is its impact on the rest of the season and for that reason I've not paid all that much attention to the formats deficiencies. All limited overs forms of cricket are by definition a presentation of a limited set of aspects of the game which is why multi-day 2 innings cricket stands apart and has stood the test of time.

However there is so much I'm reading today about the deficiency of this new format even compared to T20. It's even getting slated on the BBC forum. These are people who've watched the thing pretty closely too; Alarm bells must be ringing

I did try to watch a couple of games but not for me and I call it fairground cricket , roll up roll up who can hit the most sixes , roll up roll up 5 goes on the coconut shy. T20 is the limit for me and people who can only stand to watch 100 balls each side can keep it but I do blame the counties for not keeping their players to contracts .
"
Dave replied:
Agreed, the extra 20 balls makes all the difference. I follow my county players (and former players) and quite a few are coming in at 5 and 6 and have simply had no chance to make any impact, whereas in T20 they can come in same position and turn the game around. It removes the nuance, it's simply a game of good start=win bad start = lose, there's no drama

Yorkshire gives its verdict on the 16.4

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2gXuJq8tZFTHY9gzlf0jpo
Bit simplistic some of the ideas here and i certainly don't agree with his idea or even a need for cutting the championship but overall he's right to vocalise the angst and divisiveness it has caused.

And from the Yorkshire Post

Scrap the 100-ball format and go back to playing T20 - Chris Waters
IT IS a measure of the all-consuming nature of the Yorkshire cricket crisis that I have not had time lately to lambast The Hundred.

But I’m damned if I’m going to let the chance pass by on the final day of its second season.

Whereas last year’s competition was a novelty, with many tuning in to see what the fuss was about, we now have a better idea of the concept in the round.

The main problem with it, as the former Yorkshire and England fast bowler Steve Harmison put it the other day, is that it “just doesn’t work” - a verdict upon which I am unable to improve.

Harmison was articulating what even a blind man wearing a blindfold could see in a pitch-black room - namely, that The Hundred is essentially mediocrity masquerading as excellence.

Forget the peripheral nonsense - the Z-list DJs that no one has heard of, the virtual-reality avatars, the television commentators seemingly high on acid, telling everyone that The Hundred is the best thing since sliced bread.

The concept, the cricket, is simply not good enough.

It is not so much a poor man’s IPL as a beggar’s IPL.

If English cricket is to have a franchise tournament - and it’s too late now to turn back the clock - then let it be a T20 one in line with the IPL and its global counterparts.

The need for a so-called “point of difference” - 16.4 overs per side (100 balls) as opposed to 20 overs per side - backfires for me, regardless of whether that might be best for the television schedulers.

From where I’m sitting, the only real “point of difference” with The Hundred is that it is not as good as T20.

It may not seem much - 100 balls instead of 120, blocks of five balls instead of six-ball overs, and so on - but it equates to unnecessary confusion for players and spectators while the television graphics are all over the shop, which makes the scoring difficult to follow - at least for yours truly.

Of course, I nearly forgot, The Hundred is not for the likes of me, or for Steve Harmison, or for the likes of you perhaps as “proper cricket” lovers.

The Hundred is designed to draw in those who previously thought that “cricket” was a chirping insect - essentially people who don’t like the game but, wooed by the appeal of this incredible new concept, will magically go from apathy and disinterest to pulling sickies at work or at school just to slip into Clean Slate Headingley, say, in their desperation to catch a few overs of a County Championship game.

There is no sign of that transfer of interest happening, of course, and it was never going to happen.

Why, it would be like giving someone a particularly bad novel and expecting their interest in literature to be piqued to the point that they would suddenly start lining their shelves with the work of George Orwell and Ernest Hemingway.

The Hundred is often presented as “the best versus the best”.

Indeed, the low – sorry, the high – performance review presently being carried out by Sir Andrew Strauss and the England and Wales Cricket Board actually states: “The Hundred is committed through to 2028 and is a clear best v best competition.”

Really?

In that case, why are so many big-name players not in it? Why did the likes of Jonny Bairstow and Ben Stokes pull out of this year’s competition?

There are various reasons such as international schedules and the need for rest, but this is hardly IPL standard or indeed the standard on view in other franchise tournaments.

Next year, The Hundred will not be clashing with England’s games in quite the same way.

But if the concept itself is flawed, the problems will remain.

As Harmison said on talkSPORT: “We’ve got to play Twenty20 cricket. The Hundred just doesn’t work. We’ve got to play Twenty20 cricket in line with the rest of the world.

“We’ve tried this new format. It hasn’t worked. I would question whether it is the best quality because I’ve not seen many games going down to the last ball in the two years, or a higher percentage of games going down to the last set of five.

“I think we’ve got to go back to Twenty20 cricket. We can still market it the same way and I think it will make the competition better and get it closer to what the IPL gives you.

"I think it could be the second-biggest and the second-best quality competition in the world in domestic Twenty20.

“I don’t think The Hundred works. I don’t think players know how to play it. I don’t think players understand it properly and I think that’s why we’re not seeing as many closer contests.”

Hear, hear to that.

Hitherto, my objection to The Hundred was not actually the cricket - each to their own - but rather the collateral damage to the men’s county schedule, and in consequence to Test cricket.

That we had no first-class county cricket last month, for example, was a ridiculous state of affairs and an insult to members and supporters who are frankly taken for granted now.

The damage to England’s chances of success at the highest level – purportedly the main objective of the high performance review – was clear.

Yes, the format has been good for women’s cricket, but the women can play T20 too and The Hundred is not played anywhere else – and with good reason. In its efforts to simplify the sport, it has only made it more confusing while the product is average. What’s not to loathe?

Yep somewhere between 65% and 75% of broadcasting revenue to the English game is directly from just the 6 or 7 home test matches staged in England each season.

This term 'future proofing the game' gets bandied about by proponents of the 16.4 & it's all very well cos we know England can't play India or Australia every year charging £200 a ticket and filling hospitality and pleasing the broadcasters. There will of course be years when Windies or Sri Lanka or NZ are touring instead when tickets and hospitality has to be pegged more reasonably.

Future proofing the game could be achieved in other ways not reliant on a panicky new format.

The income from 1 day of the India test match to the ECB coffers would require 8 of these 16.4 events to match up in terms of revenue generated.

And sure crowds of 19,000 at Edgbaston to watch teams nobody gives a monkeys about is impressive but like I say you'd need 8 of those to match the income generated from a single day of the India test match.

George Dobell recently suggested selling Lord's for development and using just some of the billions from that to build a 55,000 stadium in the south east with a retractable roof thus enabling cricket to be played deep into October and March (perhaps even into winter if the temperature could be regulated) extending the English cricket season

👍

Be nice to see Old Hill back in the league assuming the play off place would go to 2nd spot?

Just wondering in case a place for the mighty Attock has opened up

Congratulations to Smethwick on their first Birmingham League title since 1968 with a game to spare after leading pretty much all season.

Barnt Green or Moseley (Rob Yates and Keith Barker got their reply off to a flier against Halesowen today) will finish second. A poor season for the two jewel's in the Warwickshire League crown Berkswell and Knowle & Dorridge - noticed Dominic Ostler even had a game for Berkswell today and Neil Smith was still playing for Leamington the other week too

One final round next week only one matter to be decided who is promoted along with Wolverhampton from Div 2 - Barnards Green or Lichfield.

The weekend of September 17-18th (and 24th if required) is the play-offs to determine the 2 clubs to be promoted from the 4 feeder leagues, replacing Walsall (their demise continues) and Wem. Worfield managed to stay in the league in their debut season with some occasional assistance from Will Rhodes

Coventry & Nth Warks will be favourites but one of Tamworth, Stourport-on-Severn or Ludlow look like they'll also be promoted

There was also I thought a really detailed response to the Strauss review earlier this week by 'Radlett Ronnie' on the Middlesex forum I thought worth pasting here.

I have had the chance to have a close look at the Strauss document and have a few thoughts about some of it.

• The Review wants England to be at or near the top of all three international formats. Yet is fails to consider the impact of the 100 on those three formats. The Review is therefore deeply flawed. It assumes that the Hundred is “the best v the best” (without any evidence) and that this is the one element of the English game that does not need any reconsideration.

• The Review is clearly not finished. There is a list of 7 unanswered questions on Page 36 . It is also clear that there has been some last minute rethinking. The plan was for change in 2023. Information was to be published on 9 September with a vote on 20 Sep. Hence counties have been hastily arranging EGMs and other consultation exercises. This was to treat the counties with complete disrespect. Now, something seems to have changed. More below.

• The jargon is horrible, “thought leaders”… “performance summit”… “aligned, aspirational England environment”. This sort of language usually suggests an underlying lack of substance.

• Some ideas are in direct opposition to recent ECB policies: smaller Championship Division 1, recently enlarged to 10, from 8; North v South abroad pre-season, tried and recently abandoned by the ECB; the lack of bowling for spinners in first class cricket but scheduling most of that in late Spring and early Autumn; more Lions games, when the most recent was used as a practice match, not even first class.

• The Review stresses that the amount of cricket played in England is higher than elsewhere. There is no consideration of the fact that more cricket means more opportunities for more cricketers, and that cuts in the number of games will mean cuts in playing staffs. In any case, the issue is the scheduling not the number of days’ cricket. Toby Roland-Jones is currently on a period which could mean more than seven weeks without any cricket. Also largely ignored is the fact that the elite players are protected from over-playing by central contracts. Most significantly of all, it ignores the fact that there has been a huge increase in the number of England games. It really is rich for an ECB-commissioned report to preach cutting county games while the ECB greatly increases international fixtures.

• Comparisons with other countries are selective in the Review. It ignores, for instance, the standard of Australian club cricket and the vast Indian population. There is no comparison of games lost to weather in different countries. It does not address, for instance, the fact that Australian states do not play a second short-form competition on top of The Big Bash.

• There is a bland assumption that, in England, less will be better. This flies in the face of evidence from other skills-based activities. Nowhere is there consideration of the possible impact of fewer games on the validity, integrity and value of domestic competitions, especially the championship. Nowhere is there consideration of the impact of fewer games on the use of outgrounds such as Scarborough, Cheltenham or Chesterfield, where the game is taken to venues away from county centres. Nowhere is there consideration of what fewer matches will do for county memberships and wider enthusiasm for the game beyond its shortest versions. Yet there is vague reference to red ball cricket in August.

The Review raises some valid questions. Now that there is a year's delay to any implementation of its implications, is there now any value in rushed consultations? And what form is the vote by county chairs on Sep 20 to take in the light of the extra time now available to consider the Review properly?

https://youtu.be/cRjfdU_dodI
Andrew Cornish discussed ECB's high performance review on a Middlesex vlog
Seems calm and measured

https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-world-cricket-committee-renews-calls-to-speed

Such measures could include the use of a countdown clock between overs and the on-going assessment of the DRS process, to ensure players and umpires remain vigilant on moving the game forward

Penalty runs also

Long overdue some of this. Days 1&2 of the India test over rates were outrageous

Would this be trialled at a county match I wonder?

That was interesting cheers Gerry.

The 50 overs ODC has been shunted around the calendar the most (that seems set to continue) and it's also the format that has been chopped and changed the most too - number of matches is it a league, is it a cup or is it a bit of both?

Like a lot of the data we've been presented with though the question is what's it supposed to be informing us of a need for? I think the big take from that set of detailed charts is the gaps that exist in the season between any red ball cricket being played has become unsustainably too large especially for a country like England - sure to form there's a set of fixtures Monday during which 4 counties don't even get to play - and sure enough the weather and temperatures and quality of daylight has deteriorated just in time for this resumption

Say they do fill August with 3-4 championship games in 2023 and say they do go onto reduce the total number of games to 10 from 2024. I've asked it before but what on earth will the players be doing through May, June & July? All it will do is move that gaping hole we've suffered this August without any red ball cricket to another 5-6 week period earlier in the season. That cannot be allowed to happen. 14 CC rounds of cricket with all 18 counties playing each and every round is surely not beyond the schedulers considering there were 16 rounds allocated for it this year

Agree with Leicester Exile about it being flawed to only give the batting side who wins any bonus points

There will be a lot more unfair point allocation draws in that case. Rain hasn't gone away despite the last 3-4 years.

Team "A" could get 600, then bowl team "B" out for 200, then it rains for the rest of the match. Is that fair that both sides get just 1 point instead of 9 points to the dominant side and 1 to the side that was on the back foot?

Unless they're proposing bringing in winning draws and losing draws like in Saturday league Cricket perhaps?

Also people moan already about batsman friendly strips so bat first and bat for three and a half days two batting points plus one for the draw as good as a win. You need bowling points for a healthy competition.

Suggestions such as 3 points for a win and no bonus points without a win remind me of top down approach to urban post world war two planning where you get in the 1960's all manner of neat tidy modern urban developments replacing the tangled but lived communities but lack specific detail. The existing bonus points system has developed over time from lived experience within the first class game. Turn up to watch on day two of a game and there are points to see being accrued by both sides. It might be the only day of the game that spectator gets to see too. Take bonus points away and some enjoyment is lost not only for the spectator but also for the players/teams gaining bonus points likely keeps them motivated.

Moeen Ali's cousin with a big hundred there. I imagine Worcs will declare leaving Warks a big total to win today. If they had Hamza, Maddy and Amir I'd give them half a sniff but looks a tall order

Meanwhile Derbyshire have changed the date of their members forum interestingly the formal ECB proposal not now expected until September 12th not September 9th as previously set.

The Club’s next Members’ Forum has been moved to Thursday 15 September (7pm) to allow Members the time to review any formal proposals following the High Performance Review ahead of the Forum. The event, which is exclusive to 2022 and Life Members, is being held to provide Members with the opportunity to express their views and ask questions about proposed amends to the county structure and schedule. It has been pushed back by 72 hours with Derbyshire now understanding that any formal proposals following the High Performance Review will be sent to clubs by 12 September, as opposed to the original 9 September target. Documentation which is released for consideration by counties will be issued to Members via email. The Forum on 15 September, which will be held in person in the Members’ Lounge at The Incora County Ground and remotely via Zoom, will offer the opportunity for Members to discuss any formal proposals with the Club’s Supervisory Board. Chief Executive, Ryan Duckett, said: “As a Club we’re keen to engage with our Members throughout this process using our regular Members’ Forums. “We believe that by pushing the next Forum back by 72 hours this will allow the Supervisory Board, as well as the Club’s Members, a suitable window to consider any proposals before what I’m sure will be a productive meeting on the 15th. “This is an important time in County Cricket and I’d urge our Members to be a part of the debate whether that be in person or via Zoom.”

As it stands Warwickshire members will only have 24 hours to review the proposal before our forum on the 13th

I don't think the counties have the same goals to be fair. Many will say they want to retain the CC and most will be loathe to lose any Blast games.

Leicestershire probably value the Blast and RLODC higher than the championship for instance. Their CEO updated on their website a couple of days ago and I expect he'll be attending the CEO's briefing at Edgbaston tomorrow but as you can see his expectation was along what you suggest which is no change until 2024.

I along with our Director of Cricket and Chair are due to meet the ECB at the beginning of September to hear these proposals. I am also looking to see how we can get further input from our members as to their thoughts. Our board are currently considering how we do this but please keep an eye on the website as I am sure details will be announced soon. As it stands my understanding is that changes proposed will not be implemented until the 2024 season but will report back as soon as we know. I am pleased to read that any comments of reducing the number of counties is untrue. The ECB have indicated that the 18 FCC will remain in place. For people that follow me on social media will see I am an advocate of growing the game, not reducing it.

I think the 50 overs game is most vulnerable and has less support shored up for it and in terms of international mood music might be the one to be sidelined. So a drop to a shorter group stage (2 home + 2 away games) and proper quarter finals, semi finals and Lord's final likely I'd expect. Also having the group stages April/May with the final in June. These changes would give more breathing space for the championship and blast games - potentially 2 more weeks of wiggle room for rest

The big disagreement between the counties (pre COVID) was always over the scheduling of the Blast. Big city based counties like Warwicks and Lancs prefer once a week Friday nights. Smaller provincial counties like Somerset and Essex prefer it in a block or two mini-blocks playing 3 Blast games per week.

The blocks will probably stay the big thing to sort out will be rest slots for players these should be easy to schedule if there's fewer 50-over games. Warwickshire this season had a week off in mid April and also have next week off. Add two spare weeks to that by only playing 4 RLODC group games instead of 8 and that's at least 4 whole weeks rest in the schedule without any need to trim the CC or the Blast.

Yorkshire update

The Yorkshire County Cricket Club would like to update Members on its involvement in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s (ECB) High Performance Review.

Yorkshire, among other First Class counties, were invited to the first stage of the consultation process in Manchester on Friday where the ECB held the first of four regional meetings.

The Club expects to receive proposals on 12 September to ensure that English cricket, whether at international or domestic level, remains highly competitive. It is important to clarify that the counties have agreed that the LV= Insurance County Championship structure will remain the same in 2023. Yorkshire will play 14 County Championship matches next season. The proposals on 12 September will be related to the current white-ball structure ahead of the 2023 season. Any proposals regarding red-ball cricket will be deferred to allow time for further consultation.

The Club will update the Members’ Committee following the consultation process and inform Members after the upcoming EGM at 9.30am on Tuesday 13 September in the Long Room, Headingley. Yorkshire Chair Lord Kamlesh Patel and Interim Managing Director of Cricket Darren Gough will be in attendance to relay the recommendations and to answer Members’ questions.

It is important to stress that Members will be consulted on any votes that may occur in September and the Club will be sending a survey to Members that we hold an email address for. Members views will influence the decision of the Board to mandate the Chair to vote appropriately.

Thank you for your continued support.

Relieved they won't make knee jerk decisions about the County Championship this side of September 20th but we must still be on our guard

Yorkshire above all must realise any fewer than 14 (7 home CC matches) and it wouldn't be a championship any longer. Also impact on Scarborough which currently hosts 2 CC games leaving Leeds only 5 already is immeasurable

I wonder why the Warwickshire statement above didn't make this clear? Are they going to share red ball changes with us at this forum 12th September even though they won't be voted on until well after September 20th - not simply deferred till 2024 which Warks suggested but quite possibly (more likely I'd say) knocked back altogether by the counties and the members

Particularly as we were top of the 2nd Xi championship going into this game

Lots of mitigating factors alongside strength of Northants and one to take into account at that age is contract situations this time of year and the general instability around the club at present

I wonder if next week's home game might feature some fringe first team players who need a score or tune up like Northants did with a few here. Several who've been away with the circus last month or so and not got much of a game thinking Sam Hain

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/cricket/county-championship-points-b1021709.html

Bonus points would only be available for batting – and if the team wins. If a team won with a score of 325-399 in any innings of the match, they would receive one bonus point. And if a team won with a score of 400-plus in any innings of the match, they would receive two bonuses. So a maximum of five points is available to winning teams, while the losers receive nothing.

Not totally against changes to points system but no way should they cut the number of games in the championship

Also should rain wipe out 2 and a half days in any given game and only a draw is possible - what then? Joke bowling to ensure high scores for both sides?